We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.


Refine your search



23 results found


Baker McKenzie | USA, Mexico | 26 Sep 2016

Arbitration. Confirmation of Award. Second Circuit affirms, for the first time, the confirmation of an international arbitral award despite annulment at the seat of arbitration

The underlying dispute arose out of a 1997 contract to build oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico between Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento


Sedgwick LLP | USA | 30 Sep 2011

In-network provider has standing to pursue ERISA remedies, but state law reimbursement claim completely preempted by ERISA

In Montefiore Medical Center v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an in-network provider's state law based reimbursement claim is completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq. (ERISA), and rejected the provider's argument that an otherwise valid assignment of benefits is a "nullity" whenever care is provided in-network.


Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP | USA | 2 Jun 2011

U.S. Supreme Court rules on remedies for deficient plan communications

The U.S. Supreme Court does not often issue decisions interpreting the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), so when the Justices speak, the issues are significant.


Seyfarth Shaw LLP | USA | 16 May 2011

Supreme Court holds that intentionally misleading SPD may give rise to claim for monetary relief

Today, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous 8-0 decision (with Justice Sotomayor taking no part in the consideration of the case) vacated and remanded CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, No. 09-804, 563 U.S. ____ (2011) to the district court for further consideration.


Kelley Drye & Warren LLP | USA | 6 May 2011

Ninth Circuit decision further clouds preemption issues in idea theft cases

On May 4, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed its decision reversing the order of the district court dismissing plaintiffs’ idea theft claim on the grounds of copyright preemption, remanding for further proceedings.


Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP | USA | 3 May 2011

Second Circuit reaffirms standard for ERISA complete preemption

On April 21, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to remand claims that were completely preempted under ERISA.


Mayer Brown | USA | 18 Apr 2011

Seventh Circuit clarifies that defendants may remove class actions unless it is “legally impossible” for $5 million or more to be at stake

In a pair of recent decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action that has been removed from state court when a defendant estimates that the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement has been met, unless the plaintiff can show that it would be legally impossible to recover that amount.


Pepper Hamilton LLP | USA | 13 Dec 2010

Federal court reaffirms gartenberg excessive fee framework

In the first excessive-fee case decided by a federal court in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones v. Harris Associates, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on December 9 reinstated its order granting summary judgment to defendant Ameriprise Financial in Gallus v. Ameriprise.


Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | USA | 8 Oct 2010

Derivative claims against Ernst & Young LLP and KPMG LLP dismissed in Computer Associates Derivative Litigation

On September 29, 2010, in the Computer Associates International Derivative Litigation, Judge Thomas C. Platt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss derivative claims asserted against Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") and KPMG LLP ("KMPG"), the former and current auditors of Computer Associates ("CA").


Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP | USA | 13 Sep 2010

Second Circuit finds “insured vs. insured” exclusion ambiguous in a contract for D&O liability insurance

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the “insured vs. insured” exclusion in a Directors and Officers (“D&O”) liability policy is ambiguous in a case brought by the legacy entity’s directors and officers against representatives of a newly formed corporate entity.

Previous page 1 2 3